the potential performance of ancient mediterranean sailing rigs€¦ · does allow a start to be...

The Potential Performance of Ancient MediterraneanSailing Rigsijna_276 2..17

Julian WhitewrightCentre for Maritime Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield,Southampton. SO17 1BJ, UK

A common statement in the academic literature relating to the ancient Mediterranean is that the lateen/settee rig superseded theMediterranean square-sail because it provided superior upwind performance, greater manoeuvrability and higher overall speed.This statement has been repeated so often that it is now commonly accepted. Research by the author sets out to develop aninsight into the relative performance of both types of rig, based on historical sources, ethnographic records and the performanceof representative, full-size sailing vessels. This allows a reassessment to be made of the underlying reasons behind the adoptionof the lateen/settee rig in the Mediterranean.

© 2010 The Author

Key words: sailing performance, square-sail, lateen, settee, Mediterranean.

The invention and adoption of the lateen/setteerig in the Mediterranean is usually considered,either consciously or unconsciously, by scholars

in terms of a ‘need-driven’ technological change. In thiscase, the ‘need’ driving the change is the logical desireamong ancient mariners to improve the performanceof their sailing vessels. In particular, scholars focus onthe benefits to upwind performance which the lateen/settee rig allows. A recent statement on the subject canbe considered representative of many other generalisedthoughts, namely that:

Lateen-rigged ships were probably faster, and achievedbetter sailing angles to the wind [than square-rigged ships].Could speed and manoeuvrability be two of the mainreasons that made lateen sails apparently so popular in theearly-medieval Mediterranean? (Castro et al., 2008: 348).

This viewpoint is firmly lodged in the recent academicliterature as the principal reason behind the inventionof the lateen/settee rig. The paper referred to above issimply repeating an accepted ‘standard view’ expressedby many others (for example LeBaron-Bowen, 1949:95; Hourani, 1951: 101; Lopez, 1959: 71; Kreutz, 1976:81–2; White, 1984: 143–4; Pryor, 1994: 67–8; Camp-bell, 1995: 2; Casson, 1995: 243; Basch, 2001: 72;McCormick, 2001: 458; Makris, 2002: 96; Kingsley,2004: 78; Polzer, 2008: 242; Castro et al., 2008: 347–8,351).

Two main objections can be made to this ‘standardview’. Firstly, that little, if any, evidence, whetherfrom practical experience or from published sources,

accompanies such statements. Secondly, the underly-ing theoretical assumption is one of technologicaldeterminism. The explanation of sailing-rig develop-ment within the fields of maritime archaeology andhistory has been based on the notion that observablechange must have occurred for an explicable, logicalreason; generally the ‘need’ for better windward per-formance. Within this schema, the development of thelateen sail, and its performance superiority over thesquare-sail, has allowed the establishment of a unilin-ear progression of sailing-rig technology, from the‘ancient’ square-sail to the ‘modern’ bermudan rig(Fig. 1). Each step in the process allows a further leapforward in windward performance to be made.

The logical, predictable nature of progression, ren-dered in technologically deterministic terms, dictatesthat ‘older, simpler’ technologies must become redun-dant once ‘newer, better’ ones are developed. Suchconcepts have been the subject of strong criticismwithin the fields of archaeology and anthropology (forexample Leeuw and Torrence, 1989: 1–2; Pfaffen-berger, 1992; Loney, 2000: 647). As maritime archae-ology continues to mature as a subject, its theoreticalstandpoint should broadly follow that of the widerdiscipline, unless, of course, the archaeological evi-dence is directly to the contrary. Recent work withinmaritime contexts illustrates that maritime archaeol-ogy and mainstream archaeological theory are mutu-ally compatible (for example Gould, 2001; Adams,2003; Schiffer, 2005). However, as this paper sets out todemonstrate, in the example of technological change

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2011) 40.1: 2–17doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00276.x

© 2010 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2010 The Nautical Archaeology Society.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

relating to the lateen/settee rig, the available evidenceindicates that the currently-accepted theory is wide ofthe mark.

Approaches and methodologyThe modern, global yachting industry has accrued alarge body of knowledge relating to the bermudan rigcurrently favoured by most classes of yacht involved inorganised racing (Marchaj, 1996: 152). There is now agrowing body of literature and test-results relating tothe performance of other, more traditional, sailing-rigsand reconstructed historical vessels (for exampleCrumlin-Pedersen and Vinner, 1986; Brandt andHochkirch, 1995; Nomoto et al., 2003; Englert, 2006;Bennett, 2009; Palmer, 2009a; Palmer, 2009b).However, there remains no direct comparison of thesquare-sail and lateen/settee rig. The accurate measure-ment of sailing-performance is fraught with problems,perhaps more so when trying to measure traditionalcraft which do not generally have complex instrumen-tation installed. A good account of these problems,and some of the methods that can be used to overcomethem, is given by Palmer (2009c).

The lack of data relevant to the specific nature of theproblem necessitates the use of a different approach toassess the relative potential performance of the antiqueMediterranean square-sail and the lateen/settee rig.The author has approached the problem by drawing onthe wide range of evidence relating to the performanceof reconstructed historical ships, in conjunction withreferences to voyages in historical and ethnographicsources. In each case the evidence is derived from theperformance of vessels operating in real conditions,carrying sailing-rigs broadly comparable to those seenin antiquity.

This study uses the concept of ‘velocity made good’(Vmg) as central to the comparative assessment ofappropriate sailing vessels, reconstruction or other-wise. Put simply, Vmg is the absolute speed of a vesselover a direct course between two points (Fig. 2).Analysis of Vmg allows the absolute performance oftwo vessels to be compared, independent of factorswhich are often the source of subjective observation,such as leeway or crew efficiency. It is of particularvalue when attempting to measure the effective speedof a vessel to windward (Englert, 2006: 39; cf. Vinner,1986: 221), an area of particular importance in the

Figure 1. A generic example of the unilinear progression of sail development, viewed through sail-plan, as usually seen bymaritime archaeologists and historians. It should be noted that the lug/settee rigs are usually grouped together on the basis ofgeometric sail-shape. If sail-handling/technical practice is used to characterise a sailing rig, then the lug and settee are easilydifferentiated. (J. Whitewright)

Figure 2. Simple diagrammatic explanation of ‘Velocity made good’ (Vmg). (J. Whitewright)

J. WHITEWRIGHT: THE POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN SAILING RIGS

© 2010 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2010 The Nautical Archaeology Society 3

context of the present study because of the traditionalexplanation for the adoption of the lateen/setteesail.

Recently, the application of Vmg derived from his-torical sources has allowed a reassessment of the capa-bility of Roman sailing vessels in the northern Red Sea(Whitewright, 2007a). A comparable, although moregeneral, study has also been carried out into northEuropean medieval voyaging on the basis of the histori-cal resource in conjunction with the performance of

reconstructed historical vessels (see Englert, 2007). Thistype of approach is expanded in this study. The dataderived for square-sail and lateen/settee-rigged vesselsis detailed in a series of 40 historical voyages (Table 1).Analysis based on these voyages is presented below.The principal aim has been to try to establish the rela-tive performance of the two rigs, not to establish adetailed set of performance characteristics. As will beseen, the available evidence is simply not detailedenough for such a study to be achievable. However, it

Table 1. Summary of square-sail voyages (nos 1–20) and lateen/settee voyages (21–40) used during research

No. Route Reference Date

Square-sail voyages

1 Lilybaeum to Anquillaria Caesar, Civil Wars, 2.23 mid-1st c. BC2 Myos Hormos to Leuke Kome Casson, 1989, Periplus Maris Erythraei, 19 1st c. AD3 Puteoli to Ostia Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 7.16 early-3rd c. AD4 Alexandria to Marseilles Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 1.1.3 late-4th c. AD5 Gaza to Byzantium Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, 26 AD 3986 Caesarea to Rhodes Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, 34 AD 4017 Rhodes to Byzantium Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, 37 AD 4018 Sea of Azov to Rhodes Diodorus Siculus, 3.34.5–35 mid-1st c. BC9 Rhodes to Alexandria Diodorus Siculus, 3.34.5–35 mid-1st c. BC

10 Utica to Caralis Caesar, African War, 98 mid-1st c. BC11 Rhegium to Puteoli Acts 28.13 mid-1st c. AD12 Ganges to Sri Lanka Pliny, Natural History, 6.82 (1942) mid-1st c. AD13 Messina to Alexandria Pliny, Natural History, 19.1 (1950) mid-1st c. AD14 Puteoli to Alexandria Pliny, Natural History, 19.1 (1950) mid-1st c. AD15 Gades to Ostia Pliny, Natural History, 19.1 mid-1st c. AD16 Corinth to Puteoli Philostratus, Life of Appolonius, 7.10 early-3rd c. AD17 Puteoli to Tauromenium Philostratus, Life of Appolonius, 8.15 early-3rd c. AD18 Alexandria to Ephesus Achilles Tatius, 5.15–17 late-3rd c. AD19 Byzantium to Gaza Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, 27 AD 39820 Byzantium to Rhodes Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, 54–55 AD 401

Lateen/settee voyages

21 Acre to Tinnis Goitein, 1967: 316–17 AD 107322 Alexandria to Tripoli (Lebanon) Goitein, 1967: 321 11th c. AD23 Alexandria to Constantinople Goitein, 1967: 326 11th c. AD24 Tinnis to Ascalon Goitein, 1967: 326 11th c. AD25 Bahr al Zihar to Sha’b Sulaim Ibn Majid (Tibbets, 1971: 256) 15th c. AD26 Khor Nawarat to The Brothers Monfried, 1935: 116 191627 Aden to Mukalla Villiers, 1940: 26–51 193828 Northern Red Sea Nakhooda Said, pers. comm. 200329 Palermo to Alexandria Goitein, 1967: 324, 326 11th c. AD30 Tripoli (Libya) to Seville Goitein, 1967: 318 AD 114031 Sardinia to Sicily Ibn Jubayr (Broadhurst, 1952: 27–8) AD 118332 Crete to Alexandria Ibn Jubayr (Broadhurst, 1952: 29) AD 118333 Bahr al Zihar to Sha’b Sulaim Ibn Majid (Tibbets, 1971: 256) 15th c. AD34 Jeddah to Saiban Ibn Majid (Tibbets, 1971: 244) 15th c. AD35 Saiban to Muqaidih Ibn Majid (Tibbets, 1971: 249) 15th c. AD36 Ras Madraka to Ras Sauqira Ibn Majid (Tibbets, 1971: 152) 15th c. AD37 Suez to Dahlak Monfried, 1935: 270 191638 Bahrein (Manama) to Kuwait City Villiers, 1940: 333–43 193939 Lamu to Mombasa Prins, 1965: 250 mid-20th c. AD40 Northern Red Sea Nakhooda Said, pers. comm. 2003

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 40.1

4 © 2010 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2010 The Nautical Archaeology Society

does allow a start to be made in assessing the perfor-mance of ancient Mediterranean sailing vessels.

ConsiderationsOne of the advantages of using Vmg to compare theperformance of different sailing vessels is that only arelatively small amount of information is required. It isworth taking the time briefly to consider the followingfactors: the rig-plan of the vessel (square-sail or lateen/settee); the hull-form of ancient vessels; the start andfinish point of the voyage; whether or not the voyagewas non-stop; the time taken to complete the voyage;and the over-riding weather conditions.

Rig-planIt is obviously important to establish the type ofsailing-rig used by a vessel on a given voyage. Withmodern voyages this is usually simple due to the sur-vival of photographs, log-books or other detailedcontemporary records. Historical voyages presentmore of a problem because they were usually onlyrecorded in general terms, by people who had noreason to record details such as the nature of thesailing-rig. In these cases it is necessary to assumethat a vessel was rigged in a generic way for a par-ticular period. For example, a ship of the earlyRoman Imperial period would most probably havebeen rigged with a Mediterranean square-sail rig.From the late-12th/early-13th century AD the north-ern European cog, with a single-masted, square-sailrig began to be built and used in the Mediterranean(Adams, 2003: 64; Pryor, 1994: 78). Before this,Mediterranean vessels would probably have beenrigged with a lateen/settee sail (cf. Whitewright,2009). It is usually impossible to know whether avessel had two or more masts, so Vmg can only becalculated for an overall rig-type; either square-sail orlateen/settee, rather than for variants within thesegeneral types.

Within the context of the present study, it is ofinterest to note that the use of the sprit-sail is attestedin Mediterranean iconography from the 2nd centuryBC onwards (see Casson, 1960; Casson, 1995: xxviand fig. 176). An extended period of use for this rigcan be postulated from its presence in the archaeologi-cal record in the 10th/11th century AD (for exampleYenikapi 6, see Kocabas and Kocabas, 2008: 103–12).The significance of this lies in modern test results. Inwind-tunnel tests the sprit-sail outperformed the threeforms of lateen rig that were also tested (Palmer, 1990:85–6; Marchaj, 1996: 161, figs 144–5). Controlledon-water comparative tests confirmed these resultsand indicated that the sprit-sail was more efficient onwindward and reaching courses than the lateen rig(Palmer 1984: 1390; 1986: 188–93; 1990: 82–3). Thissuggests that, if windward performance alone wasthe driving force behind sailing-rig development, thesprit-sail, not the lateen, would have become

widespread in the ancient Mediterranean from the 2ndcentury BC onwards.

Hull-formThe hull-form of a vessel has a large influence on itsperformance, particularly on upwind courses. Putsimply, the deeper in the water and more developed thekeel of a vessel, the better its performance will be towindward (Palmer, 2009b: 316–18). The projection ofthe keel helps to resist the lateral forces imposed on thevessel during sailing. The visible consequence ofsuch forces is usually termed leeway and is most easilyvisualised in the sideways drift experienced by a vesselwhile sailing forwards. This has the greatest effectwhen sailing close-hauled. Flat-bottomed vessels willgenerally experience more leeway, and a correspond-ing reduction in performance, than vessels withsubstantially-projecting keels. Evidence of the effect ofincreasing the depth of keel comes from the sailing-trials of half-scale reconstructions of the Sutton Hooand Graveney boats (Gifford and Gifford, 1996; cf.Palmer, 2009b: 316–18). Although half-scale, the per-formance of these vessels can still be considered in thisstudy, as vessels rigged with square-sails, rather thanrepresenting the real performance of either the SuttonHoo or Graveney vessels. The addition of a false keelto the Graveney boat reduced the observed leeway byhalf to c.10° (Gifford and Gifford, 1996: 139) Similarlyon the reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo ship, theincrease of the keel projection from 20 to 40 mmreduced the observed leeway from c.20° to 12° (Giffordand Gifford, 1996: 150). These results need to betreated with some caution due to the methods used tomeasure performance, but they do indicate the generalprinciple.

It is practically impossible to determine the under-water hull-shape of a vessel referred to in a literarysource. However, shipwreck remains from the Medi-terranean indicate that a wide variety of hull-formsexisted (Fig. 3), including flat-bottomed vessels, suchas Cavalière (Charlin et al., 1978: fig. 34) or Laurons 2(Gassend et al., 1984: fig. 17c) and those with signifi-cant underwater profiles, such as Kyrenia (Steffy, 1985:ill. 6), Madrague de Giens (Rival, 1991: fig. 62) or the4th century AD Yassi Ada vessel (Bass and vanDoorninck, 1971: fig 5). The assumption must there-fore be that historically-recorded voyages represent across-section of this shipping because of the impossi-bility of distinguishing between hull-form on the basisof a literary reference.

The visible variation in hull-form within a corpus ofancient ship-types gives some indication as to theimportance of vessel specialisation for various environ-mental, economic or social reasons. Hulls more suit-able for windward sailing than their contemporarieswere constructed regularly during antiquity (forexample Kyrenia, Madrague de Giens or 4th-centuryYassi Ada). The failure of such hull-forms to becomeubiquitous gives an indication of the relative



importance of the ‘need’ for windward performancewhen set against other social, economic or environ-mental factors. Quite simply, windward performancewas not as important as other factors. If it had been,then a higher percentage of ancient shipwrecks wouldexhibit a hull-shape similar to these three vessels. Inmany cases flat-bottomed vessels were being con-structed at much later dates than deeper-keeled vessels.The flat-bottomed Laurons 2 ship was constructedc.500 years after the deep-keeled Kyrenia ship. Thisfurther emphasises the lack of a predictable linear nar-rative to the development of maritime technology inthe ancient Mediterranean.

Voyage details and weather conditionsThe details of the voyages analysed are obviously ofgreat importance in establishing a comparable Vmgfigure. The start and finish points must both be knownin order to calculate the distance made good at theend of the voyage. It is also important to establish

that the voyage did not include any stops en route, asthese might greatly increase the time taken to com-plete the voyage, without adding to the distance trav-elled. The duration of voyages is rarely measured withaccuracy greater than half a day. When a voyage wasrecorded as taking ‘2–3 days’, a compromise figure of21/2 days may be used. Finally, the type of weatherencountered during the voyage must also be consid-ered. Ancient sources, while not always specificabout weather conditions, do provide some significantinformation. If the wind-direction is such that a vesselcan sail on a reach or a run to its destination the windmay be referred to as ‘favourable’. In contrast, windfrom an unfavourable direction is usually described as‘foul’ which, in the context of ancient sailing, may betaken to mean coming from the direction of the des-tination, or that the voyage has to be made in gener-ally upwind conditions. Where details of winds arenot given it is sometimes possible to reconstruct themost likely wind to have been encountered in specific

Figure 3. Different hull-forms, Mediterranean Classical, Roman and late-antique contexts. The cross-sectional forms con-structed by ancient shipwrights range from flat-bottomed to relatively deep-keeled. (redrawn by author from: Kyrenia (Steffy,1985: ill. 6); Cavaliére (Charlin et al., 1978: fig. 34); Madrague de Giens (Rival, 1991: fig. 62); Laurons 2 (Gassend et al., 1984:fig. 17c); 4th century Yassi Ada (Bass and van Doorninck, 1971: fig 5)



areas where the wind is very predictable, such as thenorthern Red Sea.

Weather conditions are obviously of prime impor-tance in determining the speed of a sailing vessel. Avessel travelling a relatively short distance may experi-ence ideal conditions and record a record run. On otheroccasions the captain and crew may be unlucky andhave to sail a long voyage in adverse conditions,leading to an exceptionally long journey-time. Theweather encountered on a voyage is not alwaysrecorded. However, if the start point and destinationare known, then the most likely weather conditionswhich may have been encountered may be estimated bycomparison with regional and seasonal wind-patterns.Similarly, data derived from ethnographic observationor from the trials of reconstructed vessels with compar-able rigs may give an indication of the likely perfor-mance in certain weather conditions, or when the windwas from a certain relative direction.

Sea-stateOne of the major determinants of the extent to whicha vessel rigged with any type of sail-plan makespositive ground to windward is the state of the sea(Monfried, 1935; Gillmer, 1979: 179; Heikell, 1989:23; Smitt, 1986: 172; Vinner, 1986: 222; Palmer,2009b: 329). Generally speaking, the calmer the waterthe better the vessel will perform in a windward direc-tion. This is because waves stop the progress of thevessel through the water and increase its leeway. Incertain conditions even modern vessels with a hulland rig specifically designed for windward perfor-mance struggle to make ground because of the influ-ence of wave-action (for example Heikell, 1989: 23).It may be the case in some of the voyages noted inTable 1 that although a vessel encountered wind froman unfavourable direction that wind remained lightenough to enable the vessel to make progress to wind-ward in calm seas. It must also have been part of theskill of navigation in the ancient world to selectcourses which led to sailing in sheltered waters, unaff-ected by significant wave-action and where speedcould be maximised. Island-groups and archipelagoshave been cited as slowing down passage-time(Casson, 1995: 288; McGrail, 1998: 264), but theymay actually have allowed vessels to speed up by pro-viding calm waters in which to sail to windward. Thisapproach was used by Monfried (1935) in 1916 in hispassage up the entire length of the Red Sea into theprevailing wind at an unfavourable time of year. Hisvessel carried a lateen/settee rig and he made constantuse of every island-group or reef-system available andconstantly commented on his preference for shelteredwater in which to sail, for example; ‘on the starboardtack I ventured in among the reefs of the inner seawhich stretches to the north-west. There I could workprofitably to windward in these waters which arealways calm, despite the strong breeze blowing’(Monfried, 1935: 135).

A further example of the impact of sea-state comesin the performance of one of the Hanse Cog recon-structions (Brandt and Hochkirch, 1995; cf. Hoffmannand Hoffmann, 2009: 287–93). Sailing-trials, measuredwith a GPS, produced two contrasting results. Withlight winds and calm seas, the Hanse Cog reconstruc-tion was able to make 0.63 knots Vmg to windward. Inmuch stronger winds and associated rougher seas, thevessel actually lost ground and made -0.1 knots Vmg(Brandt and Hochkirch, 1995: 7; Palmer, 2009b:fig. 18).

Mediterranean square-sail performanceThe potential performance of the single square-sail rigof the ancient Mediterranean (and similar rigs innorth-west Europe) has long been the source of specu-lation amongst scholars, who have largely focused onthe ability of vessels to sail to windward (for exampleHolmes, 1909; Gillmer, 1979; Rougé, 1981: 22; Tilley,1994; Casson, 1995: 273–4; Roberts, 1995). All haveconcluded that the single-masted square-rigged vessel,such as those of the Roman period, had some ability tosail above 90° to the wind, the consensus being thatvessels were able to steer a course 65–80° off the wind.This correlates with the range of close-hauled heading-angles reported from the sailing-trials of reconstructedhistoric square-sail vessels (Table 2). It should be notedthat these figures almost certainly represent the ‘best’results produced by a particular vessel during trials.

Table 2. Heading-angle, relative to wind-direction, of recon-struction vessels rigged with square-sails. In the cases of SeaStallion, Bialy Kon, Roar Ege, Hanse Cog and Oselven datawas measured using GPS or other accurate instruments. In theremaining examples heading-angle and leeway were estimated

Vessel Angle Reference

Sea Stallion (Skuldelev2)

60° Søren Nielsen, pers.comm.

Bialy Kon (Slavonic) 68° Englert et al., 1998: 24Bialy Kon and Dziki

Kon (Slavonic)60–65° Gülland, 2003: 361

Kyrenia II (Kyrenia) c.61° Cariolou, 1997: 92Imme Skinfaxe

(Skuldelev 3)63–68° Vadstrup, 1986: 91

Roar Ege (Skuldelev 3) 63–79° Palmer, 2009b: 325,fig. 23

Roar Ege (Skuldelev 3) 65–72° Vinner, 1986: 224Olympias (Trireme) 65–72° Morrison et al., 2000:

262Hanse Cog (Bremen) 67–75° Brandt and Hochkirch,

1995: 7–8Oselven (Faroese

traditional)68–77° Palmer, 2009b: 325,

fig. 22Imme Aros (Ellingå) 70° Vadstrup, 1986: 87Ottor (Graveney,

half-scale)70° Gifford and Gifford,

1996: 139



Literary references to close-hauled sailingIn addition to the information provided by the trialvoyages of reconstructed vessels, there are numerouspassages from ancient sources which describe the prac-tice of sailing against a contrary wind. These leave littledoubt that sailing close-hauled was practised in antiq-uity. The most notable of these is probably the passagefrom Aristotle, dating to the 4th century BC:

Why is it that, when the wind is unfavourable and theywish to run before it, they reef the sail in the direction ofthe helmsman, and slacken the part of the sheet towardsthe bows? Is it because the rudder cannot act against thewind when it is stormy, but can when the wind is slight andso they shorten sail? In this way the wind carries the shipforward, but the rudder turns it into the wind, actingagainst the sea as a lever. At the same time the sailors fightagainst the wind; for they lean over in the opposite direc-tion (Aristotle, 1955, 851b.7).

This passage represents a concerted effort by theancient mariner to balance the rig of his vessel, usingthe characteristic brails of the Mediterranean square-sail, while sailing on a close-hauled course. The need tobalance the Centre of Effort (CE) and Centre ofLateral Resistance (CLR) of the vessel becomes criticalon such courses (although it is still important on othercourses) (cf. Palmer, 2009a). The inference therefore isthat such an action would be less remarkable if thevessel was only sailing on downwind courses.

In the same vein, the following passage from Plinywill be familiar to anyone who has ever helmed a boatupwind in a confined waterway: ‘Vessels by means ofslacking the sheets can sail in contrary direction withthe same winds, so that collisions occur, usually atnight, between ships on opposite tacks’ (Pliny, 1938,2.48). Pliny’s observation that the sheets are slackenedmay suggest that the ships are sailing downwind.However, it should be remembered that in order to sailclose-hauled with a square-sail rig one of the sheetsmust be slackened off enough for the tack of the sail tobe secured in the bow of the vessel, while the othersheet remains led aft.

Finally, Achilles Tatius dramatically describes aship encountering a wind-shift which causes headwindsand, as a result, an extended period of tacking into thewind. It is of interest that the practice of shorteninghalf the sail-area is also mentioned:

On the third day of our voyage, the perfect calm we hadhitherto experienced was suddenly overcast by darkclouds and the daylight disappeared, a wind blew upwardsfrom the sea full in the ship’s face, and the helmsman badethe sailyard be slewed round. The sailors hastened toeffect this, bunching up half the sail upon the yard by mainforce, for the increasing violence of the gusts obstructedtheir efforts; for the rest, they kept enough of the fullspread [of the sail] to make the wind help them to tack. Asa result of this the ship lay on her side, one bulwark raisedupward into the air and the deck a steep slope, so thatmost of us thought that she must heel over when the nextgale struck us. We transferred ourselves therefore to that

part of the boat which was highest out of the water { thewind suddenly shifted to the other side so that the ship wasalmost sent under water, and instantly that part of theboat which had been down in the waves was now violentlythrown up { all changed their station, running, withshouts and cries, to the position in which they had beenbefore they moved; and the same thing happened a thirdand a fourth, nay, many times, we thus imitated themotion of the ship (Achilles Tatius, 1917, III.1–2).

All these passages, in different ways, recount the expe-rience and practice of sailing a Mediterranean square-sail vessel on a close-hauled course.

The artemon and mizzen sailThe appearance of the artemon and mizzen sails as partof the ancient sailing rig is also instructive about thetypes of courses being sailed. These sails add relativelylittle to speed on downwind courses, but both can playa crucial role when attempting to balance and steer avessel on close-hauled courses. The artemon is crucialfor the balance of vessels rigged with the mainmastamidships (cf. Palmer, 2009a: fig. 10). A mizzen sailprovides an invaluable aid to steering, particularlywhen forcing a vessel through the wind during a tackand for keeping the bow of the vessel ‘on the wind’.This observation does not require any further analysis,its truth is confirmed by every traditional boat afloatthat carries a mizzen sail. The development and incor-poration of artemon and mizzen sails into the rigs ofthe ancient Mediterranean may have reduced theemphasis on using brails as a way of fine-tuning avessel’s balance.

The mizzen and artemon sails in iconographic andliterary sources can explicitly be associated with thepractice of sailing on courses above 90° to the wind.Their appearance in the sources, therefore, can prob-ably indicate periods when such sailing becameincreasingly common practice. A similar point can bemade for the use of bowlines on Mediterranean ships inthe Roman period (for iconographic examples seeBasch, 1989: figs 3–4). This rigging component has nofunction other than to maintain tension on the luff ofthe sail when sailing close-hauled, and is another indi-cator that such courses were sailed in antiquity.

The Vmg of square-sail vesselsBefore analysing a series of voyages by square-sailvessels it is useful to be able to establish some param-eters within which results might be expected to fit,particularly when it is not known whether a voyagewas made with ‘fair’ or ‘foul’ winds (offwind or upwindrespectively). The performance of reconstructionsquare-sail vessels (Table 3), in known conditions, cangive an indication of the possible conditions experi-enced by ancient vessels where the actual conditionsare not mentioned by the author. The voyage in ques-tion can then be categorised accordingly. Trials ofreconstructed historical vessels are often carried out ingood conditions and by a crew who are actively trying



to achieve the best performance available, upwind ordownwind. As such they provide an ‘optimal yardstick’by which the data from historical voyages can be mea-sured. It should be noted that vessels with a hull-formpre-disposed to lower speeds (those with a lowerlength:beam ratio) are likely to produce inferior resultswhen directly compared to longer, faster vessels.

Analysis of these results indicates that vessels riggedwith single square-sails can be expected to achieve amaximum of 2 knots Vmg when sailing close-hauled(cf. Crumlin-Pedersen, 1984: 32–3; Johansen, 2009:65). Such figures are only likely to be achieved by avessel with a relatively-efficient hull-shape (such asSkuldelev 3) and in optimal conditions of moderatewinds and calm seas (cf. Palmer, 2009b: 329). Beamiervessels (such as Skuldelev 1) may produce lowerresults, while vessels lacking a substantial keel, such asthe Graveney, Sutton Hoo and Hanse Cog replicas,may not even achieve 1 knot Vmg. In non-optimal con-ditions (strong wind and rough sea) significant groundmay be lost to windward while sailing close-hauled.When considering the performance of Mediterraneancargo ships, it is notable that Skuldelev 1 (a relatively-beamy vessel designed specifically for carrying cargo)has produced good results over many years of testingtwo separate reconstructions.

Potential square-sail performanceLiterary sources provide commentary on the time takento sail a number of different routes on vessels riggedwith the Mediterranean square-sail. The majority of

these voyages occurred in the Mediterranean, but somein the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. Archaeological evi-dence attests to the use of the Mediterranean square-sail in these waters during antiquity (Whitewright,2007b). A summary of these voyages can be found inTables 4 and 5. Analysis of these voyages can givea reasonable indication of the Vmg of vessels riggedwith the Mediterranean square-sail on unfavourable(upwind) or favourable (downwind) courses, and sug-gests that such vessels could attain a maximum of2 knots Vmg in suitable conditions on close-hauledcourses. This tallies closely with the probable perfor-mance suggested by trials of reconstructed vessels.

As well as providing as indication of the potentialspeed of sailing ships when attempting to sail to wind-ward, literary sources can also supply information ontheir speed on other courses (cross-wind or down-wind). Marchaj (1996: 147, 149, figs 127, 131) hasdemonstrated that, all other things being equal, thesquare-sail is amongst the best performer on suchcourses. On running courses with the wind comingover the vessel’s quarter a low aspect-ratio (AR) sailrepresents the optimum sail-plan, while on broadreaches a sail plan with an AR of c.1 is the best. Thefastest average speed recorded in ancient sourcesis 6.2 knots on a voyage from Corinth to Puteoli(Table 5, no. 16). The combined information indicatesthat with wind from a favourable direction, averagespeeds of 4–6 knots could be achieved on reachingand running courses. Such speeds tally with the obser-vations of reconstructed square-sail merchant vessels

Table 3. The Vmg to windward of reconstructed vessels rigged with single square-sails

Vessel Vmg Reference

Roar Ege (Skuldelev 3) 1.5–2 knots Vinner, 1986: 224Imme Skinfaxe (Skuldelev 3) 1.5–2 knots Vadstrup, 1986: 91Saga Sigla (Skuldelev 1) 1.3 knots Johansen, 2009: 68Ottor (Graveney) 1 knot Gifford and Gifford, 1996: 140–41Sæ Wyfling (Sutton Hoo) 1 knot Gifford and Gifford, 1996: 149–50Ottar (Skuldelev 1) 1 knot Englert, pers. comm.Hanse Cog (Bremen) 0.63 knots Brandt and Hochkirch, 1995: 7Hanse Cog (Bremen) -0.1 knots Brandt and Hochkirch, 1995: 7

Table 4. Summary of ancient square-sail voyages made in unfavourable conditions

No. RouteDistance

(nautical miles)Time(days)

Vmg(knots)

1 Lilybaeum to Anquillaria 90 21/2 1.52 Myos Hormos to Leuke Kome 125 21/2 23 Puteoli to Ostia 120 21/2 24 Alexandria to Marseilles 1500 30 2.15 Gaza to Byzantium 855 20 1.86 Caesarea to Rhodes 400 10 1.77 Rhodes to Byzantium 445 10 1.8

1.8 average 1.8



(such as Skuldelev 1 or Kyrenia) on similar courses(Katzev, 1990: 245–6, 248; Englert, 2006: 41).Maximum speeds can also be indicated by data fromreplica voyages, which suggest speeds in excess of10 knots (for example Katzev, 1990: 252; Johansen,2009: 62). In some cases a record exists of the out-bound voyage made with the prevailing wind and thehomeward voyage made against it, or vice versa. Ineach case the speed (and journey time) against theprevailing wind is double the figure for the reversevoyage. This correlates broadly with the overall dif-ference between the Vmg of voyages made into thewind and with the wind.

Accurately quantifying the speed at which ancientshipping could travel under sail is difficult. In manycases the data is simply not detailed enough. Howeverthe combination of archaeological, experimental,literary and iconographic evidence can give a broadindication of the potential optimum performance ofMediterranean square-sail vessels (summarised inTable 6). The rigging and technical practice usedwould have allowed windward sailing in light-to-moderate winds and relatively calm seas. The availableevidence indicates that on close-hauled courses in such

ideal conditions a vessel could possibly have achieveda heading of 60–65° with a potential maximum Vmgof up to 2 knots (cf. Crumlin-Pedersen, 1984: 32–3;Johansen, 2009 for Viking-age square-sail perfor-mance). On reaching and running courses averagespeeds of 4–6 knots might be attained with maximumspeeds (over short distances) in excess of 10 knots. Itshould be reiterated here that these are the ‘best’ figuresthat might have been achieved. In the majority ofcases it is unlikely that such performance would haveencouraged ancient mariners to set out on a voyageagainst the wind. The practice of waiting for a suitablewind-direction must have been the norm. These figuressimply illustrate that the ancient Mediterraneansquare-sail was not as one-directional (downwind) as isoften thought. Ground could be made to windward ifthe conditions were right and circumstance required it.

The lateen/settee sailAssessing the potential performance of ancient Medi-terranean vessels with a lateen/settee sail-plan presentsa similar set of problems, and can be approached in thesame way. The relative lack of reconstruction lateen/settee-rigged vessels (and corresponding lack of data) islargely compensated for by the data available fromethnographic observations of commercial lateen/settee-rigged sailing vessels in the Red Sea and IndianOcean in the last century (for example Monfried, 1935;Villiers, 1940; Prins, 1965). Additionally, in 2003 theauthor was able to interview fisherman at the EgyptianRed Sea port of Marsa Alam regarding the use andperformance of their lateen/settee-rigged sailingvessels.

As well as providing data relating to the lateen/setteerig, these sources also recount personal observationsabout the advantages, limitations and general use ofthis rig. These recent voyages, along with medieval

Table 5. Summary of ancient square-sail voyages made in favourable conditions

No. RouteDistance


Vmg(knots)

8 Sea of Azov to Rhodes 880 10 3.79 Rhodes to Alexandria 325 4 3.4

10 Utica to Caralis 140 2 311 Rhegium to Puteoli 175 11/2 512 Ganges to Sri Lanka 900 7 5.413 Straits of Messina to Alexandria 830 7 4.914 Puteoli to Alexandria 1000 9 4.615 Gades to Ostia 1030 7 6.116 Corinth to Puteoli 670 41/2 6.217 Puteoli to Tauromenium 205 21/2 3.418 Alexandria to Ephesus 472 6 3.219 Byzantium to Gaza 855 10 3.620 Byzantium to Rhodes 445 5 3.7

average 4.4

Table 6. Summary of potential ancient Mediterranean square-sail performance in optimum conditions

Potential square-sail performance

Possible maximum heading-angle(close-hauled)

60–65°

Maximum Vmg to windward 2 knotsLikely average speed range on reaching

and running courses4–6 knots

Maximum speed on reaching and runningcourses

+12 knots



voyages described in literary sources, provide further,historically-contextualised evidence for rig perfor-mance. A dataset is therefore available which iscomparable to the one used for the analysis of theMediterranean square-sail. The presence of a body ofethnographically-derived data may be seen as particu-larly valuable, as these voyages represent ‘real-life’situations, where the primary motive was not toproduce data for a scientific test, but simply to carry ontheir everyday business. The results will therefore rep-resent normality.

Medieval literary sourcesValuable information about the use and, by inference,performance of lateen/settee-rigged vessels can bederived from the writings of the Arab navigators ofthe late-medieval period. With regard to the Red Sea,Tibbets (1961) singles out two navigators as giving themost valuable information about windward sailing;Ibn Majid and Sulaiman al-Mahrı. Of particularinterest is the practice of takkiya which was used whenvessels sailing northwards up the Red Sea encounteredthe prevailing northerly winds above the 18th parallel(Tibbets 1961: 326). Takkiya entailed turning from anortherly course in the centre of the Red Sea to sailingtowards either the Arabian or African coast—amanoeuvre consistent with having to alter course onmeeting the prevailing northerly wind. Tables of

takkiya described which islands or coastal landmarkswould be sighted first if a vessel steered for the coastfrom a known position (observed via star altitude) inthe centre of the sea. Additionally, Sulaiman al-Mahrıalso gives the sailing courses for two sets of condi-tions, a strong and a weak northerly wind. Theseaccounts allow conclusions to be drawn regarding theheading-angles which could be achieved in differentconditions by medieval Arab lateen/settee-riggedmerchant ships.

The northerly winds in the Red Sea generally blowfrom between north and north-west (Davies andMorgan, 1995: 29) so it seems reasonable to takenorth-north-west as a compromise direction. Sulaimanal-Mahrı recounts that in a strong wind a vessel steerseast by north or due east for the Arabian coast andwest-south-west or south-west by west for the Africancoast. In a weak wind the courses are north-east ornorth-east by north and due west respectively (Tibbets,1961: 327). These different courses are shown diagram-matically in Fig. 4. The close-hauled heading in strongwinds equates to c. 90–100° (c.8–10 points), improvingto c.56–73° (c.5–61/2 points) in lighter winds.

Ibn Majid also gives bearings for takkiya from theisland of Bahr al Zihar on the approaches to theharbour of al-Lith. When the wind is blowing weaklyfrom the north-west the bearing is north by east ornorth-north-east, which equates to a heading angle of

Figure 4. Illustration of the takkiya headings given by Sulaiman al-Mahrı. These give a good indication of the effect ofdifferent wind-strengths on close-hauled heading-angles of medieval lateen/settee-rigged ships in the Red Sea. Some inaccuracyis inevitable because of the need to take an average wind-direction of NNW. The variance in real wind-direction is reflected inthe fact that a range of courses is given by Sulaiman al-Mahrı for each circumstance. (J. Whitewright)



5–6 points off the wind. When the wind is blowing hardthen the ship must bear north-east or further east,giving a bearing of 8 points or more. Both these coursesare consistent with those given by Sulaiman al-Mahrı.Taken together, the takkiya headings provide an indi-cation of the windward performance of late-medievallateen/settee rigged vessels in the Red Sea. This equatesto a sustainable course of between 5 and 61/2 points(c.56–73°) off the wind in ideal conditions, diminishingto c.8–10 points (c.90–100°) off the wind in strongwinds. The variance in the given course probablyreflects variations in the encountered wind direction inconjunction with differences in vessel performance.Severin (1991: 238) notes that the settee-rigged sewnvessel Sohar could achieve 65–70° off the wind whenclose-hauled, including leeway. Although his methodof measurement is not given and may therefore beinaccurate, it does offer broad confirmation of thefigures derived from the textual sources.

As well as providing information on lateen/setteeclose-hauled headings, this re-emphasises the pointmade above that windward performance is adverselyaffected by sea-state. Strong winds result in rougherseas and decrease the ability of a vessel to hold acourse to windward due to a subsequent increase inleeway. Elements of the rig are also adversely affectedby stronger wind, seen in the stretching of sailclothand rigging. Reducing sail as the wind increases willalso reduce windward performance. In the case oflate-medieval vessels in the Red Sea the difference isas much as 3 points (c.33°) in terms of the coursesailed when compared to a vessel sailing in weakerwinds (Fig. 4). Further evidence for such problemscan be found in the writings of Ibn Majid, whodescribes the effect of an increasing north wind onlandfall when sailing toward the Arabian coast fromthe same point in the centre of the Red Sea (Tibbets,1971: 253, 386). He describes the strength of the windin four ways; ‘weak’, ‘moderate’, ‘of medium size’ and‘foul and blowing hard’. With each increase in wind-strength, landfall is made further to the south, reflect-ing the loss in performance associated with higherwind speeds.

Ibn Majid also describes the sailing seasons aroundSocatra and notes that sailing from Fartak and Hairij(on the Yemen coast) to Socatra is difficult becauseone does so at that season with ‘a wind of two sails’(Tibbets, 1971: 229); the journey is contrary to thewind and is not attempted unless the wind is light. Theterm ‘wind of two sails’ is used to describe travellingto a destination to windward. The vessel in questionsails two tacks to complete the trip, one with thesail(s) on one side of the vessel and one with them onthe other, hence the ‘two sails’. The term was recentlystill in use in East Africa and was noted in the samecontext by Prins (1965: 252) in his ethnography ofLamu. The same technique is used by fishermen in thenorthern Red Sea when sailing to windward (personalobservation).

Villiers also notes the effect which sea-state mighthave on a vessel’s performance, in terms of both theground made to windward and in dictating whichcourse was sailed. Returning home from the annualvoyage to East Africa, the Kuwaiti boom he sailed onmet persistent strong headwinds at the entrance to thePersian Gulf and was able to make little ground towindward (Villiers, 1940: 313, 317–8). In his earliervoyage in a Red Sea zaruq, Villiers noted that a pair ofsambuks, in order to beat to windward, had sailed ‘theinside passage’ between the coast and the offshore reefsin order to take advantage of the flat water there (Vil-liers, 1961: 251). Such an approach was also adoptedby Monfried (1935) in his voyage up the Red Sea fromDjibouti to Suez (above).

Finally, Ibn Jubayr describes in some detail thevoyages which he undertook. The ships on which hetravelled generally attempted to sail in favourable con-ditions with the wind from astern or abeam, even if thismeant waiting in port for several days (for exampleBroadhurst, 1952: 326, 361–2). Such an approach hasstrong echoes of earlier practices on Mediterraneansquare-sail vessels. Once at sea, in some instances whenencountering headwinds, Ibn Jubayr’s vessel was ableto continue on its course (for example Broadhurst,1952: 327, 364), suggesting relatively calm conditions.At other times the wind was too strong for the ship tomake headway and the vessel was forced downwind(Broadhurst, 1952: 331–2, 362).

These sources offer a variety of information, someof it carefully recorded by master navigators, somesimply the observations of seasoned travellers. It can,however, be interpreted to develop a picture of lateen/settee-rigged vessels from a range of contexts whichcan sail upwind at c.56–73° in favourable conditions,but which cannot hold their position as the windincreases and the sea-state deteriorates.

The Vmg of lateen/settee rigged vesselsMedieval and modern sources provide a range of datathat can give an impression of the Vmg achieved bylateen/settee rigged vessels in a variety of conditionsand contexts (Tables 7 and 8), and overall performance(Table 9). This evidence suggests that the best Vmg onupwind courses could have reached nearly 2 knots. Instronger winds, with an associated increase in wave-action, modern observations and historical sourcesboth indicate that lateen/settee-rigged vessels wouldexperience difficulty in making meaningful ground towindward. On courses with a more favourable wind(running and reaching courses), it would seem thatlateen/settee-rigged ships were capable of achieving aVmg of 4–6 knots. The maximum speed which lateen/settee rigged vessels could attain remains open tospeculation. Villiers (1940: 336) records the Kuwaitiboom Bayen reaching speeds of 10 knots. Similarly,Severin (1991: 238) records Sohar achieving speeds of8–9 knots. Of further interest is the fact that the speedsand sailing practices given in the medieval period tally



closely with those recorded during the 20th century,suggesting little change in overall performance duringthe intervening period.

ConclusionThe research contained in this paper does not attemptto provide a definitive answer to the subject of ancient/medieval sail performance. Neither does it set out to

define sail performance in the exacting, accurate termsrequired by modern naval architects or yachtsmen. Thenature of the range of evidence used dictates that theresults will always be approximate or generalised. Thisis unavoidable, but it does serve to set a starting pointfor future, wider-ranging research, or even direct, com-parative modern testing. Despite these caveats, it ispossible to begin to paint a broad picture of thepossible relative performance of the Mediterraneansquare-sail and lateen/settee sail.

The Mediterranean square-sail rig and the lateen/settee rig which replaced it during the late-antiqueperiod share certain performance characteristics.Using the data derived from voyages of full-sizedvessels, in conjunction with historical sources, a seriesof conclusions can be reached which outline the per-formance of either rig. These are summarised inTable 10 and visualised in Fig. 5. Allowing for theapproximate nature of the results, the windwardheading-angles achieved by vessels rigged with square-sails or lateen/settee sails is very similar. The results ofanalysis of the Vmg achieved by such vessels is alsobroadly similar, both on windward and off-wind

Table 7. Summary of lateen/settee voyages made in unfavourable conditions. The average Vmg is undoubtedly skewed downwardsby the slow times of voyages 24 and 27. If these are discounted, then the average rises to 1.64 knots. If only the medieval voyages21–23 are counted then Vmg rises further to 1.82 knots

No. RouteDistance


Vmg(knots)

21 Acre to Tinnis 180 4 days 1.8522 Alexandria to Tripoli (Lebanon) 360 8 days 1.923 Alexandria to Constantinople 730 18 days 1.724 Tinnis to Ascalon 127 7 days 0.725 Bahr al Zihar to Sha’b Sulaim 12 7.5 hours 1.626 Khor Nawarat to The Brothers 520 14 days 1.5427 Aden to Mukalla 266 12 days 0.9228 Northern Red Sea 15 12 hours 1.25

average 1.4

Table 8. Summary of latee/settee voyages made in favourable conditions

No. RouteDistance


Vmg(knots)

29 Palermo to Alexandria 1000 13 3.230 Tripoli (Libya) to Seville 1200 8 6.231 Sardinia to Sicily 190 2 432 Crete to Alexandria 400 4 4.233 Bahr al Zihar to Sha’b Sulaim 12 3 hours 434 Jeddah to Saiban 400 105 hours 3.835 Saiban to Muqaidih 55 12 hours 4.636 Ras Madraka to Ras Sauqira 107 1 4.537 Suez to Dahlak 940 9 4.338 Bahrein (Manama) to Kuwait City 240 2 539 Lamu to Mombasa 145 1 640 Northern Red Sea 50 12 hours 4.2

average 4.5

Table 9. Summary of the potential performance of late-antique Mediterranean lateen/settee rigged ships in optimumconditions

Potential lateen/settee sailing rig performance

Possible maximum heading-angle (close-hauled) 56–67°Maximum Vmg to windward 1.9 knotsPossible average speed-range on reaching and

running courses4–6 knots

Maximum speed on reaching and runningcourses

+10 knots



courses. It seems that differences in performance arefar more likely to have occurred as a result of differ-ences in hull-form, rather than in sailing rig.

The evidence currently available would thereforeseem to indicate that there is very little difference inthe overall performance of a sailing vessel with aMediterranean square-sail rig when compared with a

similar vessel with a lateen/settee rig from the late-antique, medieval or modern era. Figure 6 highlightsthis, illustrating the Vmg of all the voyages studied, infavourable or unfavourable conditions, from antiq-uity to the present day, regardless of the rig of thevessel. Square-sail rigged vessels from antiquity areplotted along the same curve as medieval lateen/settee-rigged vessels. It is notable that there is noimprovement in the Vmg on unfavourable coursesover this period. Likewise, the Vmg in favourableconditions remains confined within a reasonablylimited range.

The development and adoption of the lateen/setteerig, at the expense of the established square-sail,did not therefore lead to a subsequent increase in thewindward performance or overall speed of sailingvessels in the Mediterranean. Equally, it seemscounter-intuitive that abandoning the artemon andmizzen sail led to an improvement in manoeuvrabil-ity. The apparent ongoing quest for windward perfor-mance, so often given as the reason for the inventionand adoption of the lateen/settee rig, does not in factprovide the rationale for this technological change.

Table 10. Comparative potential performance summary ofancient Mediterranean square-sail and lateen/settee rigs

Potential sailing rigperformance Square-sail Lateen/settee

Possible maximumheading-angle (close-hauled)

c.60–65° c.56–67°

Maximum Vmg to windward 2 knots 1.9 knotsPossible average speed-range,

reaching and runningcourses

4–6 knots 4–6 knots

Maximum speed on reachingand running courses

+12 knots +10 knots

Figure 5. Comparative visualisation of the potential performance of Mediterranean square-sail and lateen/settee-rigged shipson upwind and downwind courses. Relative speeds are expressed in terms of Vmg; the fastest maximum speed is assumed tooccur on a broad reach. (J. Whitewright)



The technologically-determinist standpoint that hasunderpinned investigation into this area of maritimearchaeology can therefore be seen to be fundamen-tally flawed.

In general terms, it is necessary that maritimearchaeologists reassess their emphasis on the impor-tance of windward performance as a factor influencingthe evolution of ship-design. In the context of theancient Mediterranean, an efficient hull-form was inuse by the 3rd century BC, and the sprit-sail, more-

efficient than either the square-sail or lateen/settee sail,was used from the 2nd century BC onwards. That suchtechnological developments, individually or in combi-nation, did not become ubiquitous across the Mediter-ranean is significant. It indicates that windwardperformance was simply not as important a contribu-tory factor as the current academic literature suggests.A range of other factors was exerting a greater influ-ence on the design of sailing vessels than the ‘need’ tosail to windward.

AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank Colin Palmer for reading and commenting on a draft of this paper. Additionally, Anton Englerthas provided important and ongoing discussion with the author concerning the use of the data from trial voyages and historicalsources as a means to gain insight into past sail performance. In both cases, their advice, comments and insights are warmlyappreciated.

ReferencesAchilles Tatius, 1917, Leucippe and Clitophon, transl. S. Gaselee. London.Adams, J., 2003, Ships, Innovation and Social Change: Aspects of Carvel Shipbuilding in Northern Europe 1450–1850. Stockholm.Aristotle, 1955, Mechanical Problems. In Minor Works, transl. W. S. Hett. London.Basch, L., 1989, The way to the Lateen Sail, Mariner’s Mirror 75.4, 328–32.Basch, L, 2001, La voile latine, son origine, son évolution et parentés arabes, in H. E. Tzalas (ed.), Tropis VI, 6th International

Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Lamia 1996, 55–86. Athens.Bass, G. F. and van Doorninck, F. H., 1971, A Fourth-Century Shipwreck at Yassi Ada, American Journal of Archaeology 75.1,

27–37.Bennett, J. (ed.), 2009, Sailing into the Past: Learning from Replica Ships. Barnsley.Brandt, H. and Hochkirch, K., 1995, The sailing properties of the Hanse cog in comparison with other cargo sailships, Ship

Technology Research 41.1, 1–35.Broadhurst, R. J. C., 1952, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, repr. 2007. New Delhi.Caesar, 1914, The Civil Wars, transl. A. G. Peskett. London.Caesar, 1955, Alexandrian, African and Spanish Wars, transl. A. G. Way. London.Campbell, I. C., 1995, The Lateen Sail in World History, Journal of World History 6.1, 1–23.Cariolou, G. A., 1997, Kyrenia II: The return from Cyprus to Greece of the replica of a Hellenic merchant ship, in S. Swiny,

R. Hohlfelder and H. Swiny (eds), Res Maritimae, Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean from prehistory to late antiquity.Proceedings of the second international symposium ‘cities on the sea’, 83–97. Cyprus American Archaeological ResearchInstitute Monograph Series 1, Atlanta.

Figure 6. Chart plotting changing Vmg over time, as documented in the recorded voyages studied during the author’s research(Whitewright, 2008). Data is derived from averaging all the analysed voyages undertaken in both square-sail and lateen/settee-rigged vessels. (J. Whitewright)



Casson, L., 1960, The sprit-rig in the ancient world, Mariner’s Mirror 46.4, 241.Casson, L., 1989, The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Princeton.Casson, L., 1995, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. London.Castro, F., Fonseca, N., Vacas, T., and Ciciliot, F., 2008, A Quantitative Look at Mediterranean Lateen- and Square-Rigged

Ships (Part 1), IJNA 37.2, 347–59.Charlin, G., Gassend, J-M., and Lequement, R., 1978, L’Épave Antique de la baie de Cavalière, Archaeonautica 2, 9–93.Crumlin-Pedersen, O., 1984, Ships, navigation and routes in the reports of Ohthere and Wulfstan, in N. Lund (ed.), Two

Voyagers at the Court of King Alfred, 30–42. York.Crumlin-Pedersen, O., and Vinner, M. (eds), 1986, Sailing into the Past. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Replicas of

Ancient and Medieval Vessels, Roskilde 1984. Roskilde.Davies, S. and Morgan, E., 1995, Red Sea Pilot. St Ives.Diodorus Siculus, 1935, Library of History, transl. C. Oldfather. London.Englert, A., 2006, Trial voyages as a method of experimental archaeology: The aspect of speed, in L. Blue, F. Hocker and A.

Englert (eds), Connected by the sea. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde2003, 35–42. Oxford.

Englert, A., 2007, Ohthere’s voyages seen from a nautical angle, in J. Bately and A. Englert (eds), Ohthere’s Voyages. A late9th-century account of voyages along the coasts of Norway and Denmark and its cultural context, 117–29. Roskilde.

Englert, A., Indruszewski, G., Jensen, H., Gülland, T., and Gregory, D., 1998, Sailing in Slavonic Waters. The trial voyageRalswiek-Wolin with the Ralswieck-2 replica, Bialy Kon, Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde 11 (December),14–27.

Gassend, J-M., Liou, B., and Ximénès, S., 1984, L’Épave 2 de L’Anse des Laurons (Martigues, Bouches-Du-Rhone), Archaeo-nautica 4, 75–105.

Gifford, E. and Gifford, J., 1996, The sailing performance of Anglo-Saxon ships as derived from the building and trials ofhalf-scale models of the Sutton Hoo and Graveney Ship Finds, Mariner’s Mirror 82.2, 131–53.

Gillmer, T. C., 1979, The capability of the single square sail rig. A technical assessment, in S. McGrail (ed.), The Archaeologyof Medieval Ships and Harbours in Northern Europe. International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Bremerhaven,1979, 167–81. BAR S66, Oxford.

Goitein, S. D., 1967, A Mediterranean Society. Vol. 1: Economic Foundations. London.Gould, R. A., 2001, From Sail to Steam at Sea in the Late Nineteenth Century, in M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Anthropological

Perspectives on Technology, 193–213. Dragoon AZ.Gülland, T., 2003, Two Slavonic Boat Reconstructions in the Open Air Museum Gross Raden, in C. Beltrame (ed.), Boats, Ships

and Shipyards. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000, 357–62. Oxford.Heikell, R., 1989, Turkish Waters Pilot. 3rd edn, St Ives.Hoffmann, G. and Hoffmann, P., 2009, Sailing the Bremen Cog, IJNA 38.2, 281–96.Holmes, T. Rice, 1909, Could Ancient Ships Work to Windward, Classical Quarterly 3.1, 26–39.Hourani, G. F., 1951, Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times, repr. 1995. Princeton.Johansen, R., 2009, The Viking Ships of Skuldelev, in J. Bennett (ed.), Sailing into the Past: Learning from Replica Ships, 52–69.

Barnsley.Katzev, M. L., 1990, An Analysis of the Experimental Voyages of Kyrenia II, in H. E. Tzalas (ed.), Tropis II, 2nd International

Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Delphi 1987, 245–56. Athens.Kingsley, S. A. (ed.), 2004, Barbarian Seas—Late Rome to Islam. London.Kocabas, I. O. and Kocabas, U., 2008, Technological and Constructional Features of Yenikapi Shipwrecks: a preliminary

evaluation, in U. Kocabas (ed.), The ‘Old Ships’ of the ‘New Gate’, 97–186. Istanbul.Kreutz, B. M., 1976, Ships, shipping and the implications of change in the early medieval Mediterranean, Viator 7, 80–109.LeBaron-Bowen, R., 1949, Arab Dhows of Eastern Arabia, American Neptune 9, 87–132.Leeuw, S. E. van der and Torrence, R. (eds), 1989, What’s new? A closer look at the process of innovation. London.Loney, H. L. van der, 2000, Society and Technological Control: A critical review of models of technological change in ceramic

studies, American Antiquity 65.4, 646–68.Lopez, R. S., 1959, The role of trade in the economic readjustment of Byzantium in the 7th century, Dumbarton Oaks Papers

13, 67–85.McCormick, M., 2001, Origins of the European Economy. Communications and commerce, AD 300–900. Cambridge.McGrail, S., 1998, Ancient Boats in North-West Europe. The archaeology of water transport to AD 1500. London.Makris, G., 2002, Ships, in A. E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: from the Seventh through the Fifteenth

Century, 91–100. Washington DC.Marchaj, C. A., 1996, Sail Performance, Theory and Practice. London.Mark the Deacon, 1913, Life of Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, transl. G. F. Hill. Oxford.Monfried, H. de, 1935, Hashish. Smuggling under sail in the Red Sea, repr. 1974. London.Morrison, J. S., Coates, J. F., and Rankov, N. B., 2000, The Athenian Trireme. The history and reconstruction of an ancient Greek

warship. 2nd edn, Cambridge.Nomoto, K., Masuyama, Y., and Sakurai, A., 2003, Sailing Performance of Naniwa-maru, a Full Scale Reconstruction of a

Sailing Trader of Japanese Heritage, Proceedings of the 15th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. Annapolis MD.Palmer, C., 1984, The Fastest Rig, Yachting Monthly (July), 1388–90.Palmer, C., 1986, Measuring Sailing Rig Performance, in O. Crumlin-Pedersen and M. Vinner (eds), Sailing into the Past.

Proceedings of the International Seminar on Replicas of Ancient and Medieval Vessels, Roskilde 1984, 178–93. Roskilde.



Palmer, C., 1990, Sail and Hull Performance, Wooden Boat Magazine 92 (Jan/Feb), 76–89.Palmer, C., 2009a, Reflections on the Balance of Traditional Sailing Vessels, IJNA 38.1, 90–96.Palmer, C., 2009b, Windward Sailing Capabilities of Ancient Vessels, IJNA 38.2, 314–30.Palmer, C., 2009c, Measuring Performance Under Sail, in J. Bennett (ed.), Sailing into the Past: Learning from Replica Ships,

24–32. Barnsley.Pfaffenberger, B., 1992, Social Anthropology of Technology, Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 491–516.Philostratus, 1912, Life of Apollonius, transl. F. C. Conybeare. London.Pliny, 1938, Natural History, Vol. I., transl. H. Rackham. London.Pliny, 1942, Natural History, Vol. II, transl. H. Rackham. London.Pliny, 1950, Natural History, Vol. V, transl. H. Rackham. London.Polzer, M. E., 2008, Toggles and Sails in the Ancient World: Rigging Elements Recovered from the Tantura B Shipwreck, Israel,

IJNA 37.2, 225–52.Prins, A. H. J., 1965, Sailing from Lamu. A study of Maritime Culture in Islamic East Africa. Assen.Pryor, J. H., 1994, The Mediterranean Round Ship, in R. W. Unger (ed.), Cogs, Caravels and Galleons. The Sailing Ship

1000–1650, 59–76. London.Rival, M., 1991, La charpenterie navale romaine. Paris.Roberts, O. T. P., 1995, An explanation of ancient windward sailing—some other considerations, IJNA 24.4, 307–15.Rougé, J., 1981, Ships and Fleets of the Ancient Mediterranean. Middletown CT.Schiffer, M. B., 2005, The Electric Lighthouse in the Nineteenth Century: Aid to Navigation and Political Technology,

Technology and Culture 46, 275–305.Severin, T., 1991, The Sinbad Voyage. London.Smitt, L. W., 1986, Propulsion by Sail, in O. Crumlin-Pedersen and M. Vinner (eds), Sailing into the Past. Proceedings of the

International Seminar on Replicas of Ancient and Medieval Vessels, Roskilde 1984, 168–77. Roskilde.Steffy, J. R., 1985, The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction, American Journal of Archaeology 89.1,

71–101.Sulpicius Severus, 1995, Dialogues 1.1.3, in Casson, 1995, 290, n.86.Tibbets, G. R., 1961, Arab Navigation in the Red Sea, Geographical Journal 127.3, 322–34.Tibbets, G. R., 1971, Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean before the coming of the Portuguese. London.Tilley, A. F., 1994, Sailing to windward in the ancient Mediterranean, IJNA 23.4, 309–13.Vadstrup, S., 1986, Experience with Danish Viking-Ship Copies, in O. Crumlin-Pedersen and M. Vinner (eds), Sailing into the

Past. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Replicas of Ancient and Medieval Vessels, Roskilde 1984, 84–93. Roskilde.Villiers, A., 1940, Sons of Sinbad. New York.Villiers, A., 1961, Sailing with the Arabs, Mariner’s Mirror 47.4, 242–55.Vinner, M., 1986, Recording the Trial Run, in O. Crumlin-Pedersen and M. Vinner (eds), Sailing into the Past. Proceedings of

the International Seminar on Replicas of Ancient and Medieval Vessels, Roskilde 1984, 220–25. Roskilde.White, K. D., 1984, Greek and Roman Technology. London.Whitewright, J., 2007a, How fast is fast? Technology, trade and speed under sail on the Roman Red Sea, in J. Starkey, P.

Starkey and T. Wilkinson (eds), Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea. Proceedings of Red Sea ProjectIII, 77–87. BAR S1661, Oxford.

Whitewright, J., 2007b, Roman rigging material from the Red Sea port of Myos Hormos, IJNA 36.2, 282–92.Whitewright, J., 2008, Maritime Technological Change in the Ancient Mediterranean: The invention of the lateen sail,

unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton.Whitewright, J., 2009, The Mediterranean Lateen Sail in Late Antiquity, IJNA 38.1, 97–104.



the potential performance of ancient mediterranean sailing rigs€¦ · does allow a start to be...

Documents